Pat
Buchanan says: "[T]he destruction of the Jews of Europe was a consequence of
this war, not a cause." Perhaps it was not a "cause" of the war, but neither
was it a consequence. The murder of the Jews was uppermost in the minds of
the Nazis from the very beginning. The abrogation of the rights of Jews began
in 1933, and the Nuremberg Laws, which effectively stripped Jews of all rights
and led to their destruction, were promulgated in 1935, six years and four
years, respectively, before the invasion of Poland.

"If the Chinese
are wrong to hold on to their province of Tibet, then Lincoln was wrong to
insist that the South stay in the Union – and we ought to immediately either
grant the American Southwest (and California) independence, or else give it
all back to the Mexicans.

"The same
goes for Taiwan – China's rulers are no more likely to give up their claim
to that island than Lincoln was inclined to let the Confederacy hold on in,
say, Key West, Fla."

The
Dalai Lama is not asking for independence, and has not been for some time,
but rather for autonomy for the Tibetan region within China akin to Hong Kong's
current status.

Nevertheless,
Lincoln was wrong, as
you know, and Daniel
McCarthy called on the conservative value of prudence in rejecting the
cult of Abraham Lincoln, stating that "we fallible humans should proceed with
maximum caution when it comes to enforcing axiomatic moral claims at gunpoint."
He offers a conservative solution: "we'd probably all be better off separating
into different communities based on shared beliefs and values rather than imposing
one set on everybody."

This is precisely
what the Dalai Lama is calling for: separating into a different community with
autonomy.

Justin, please
do not slip into the Lincolnian cult to make your point.

The
secret expulsion of the Chagossians is one of the most deeply shameful episodes
of recent British history. It continues to be covered up – the BBC customarily
refers to Diego Garcia as "uninhabited"; if it spoke the truth and said "forcibly
depopulated," more of the British public would become aware of the issue, which
is little-known among the general public. Given the famous British love of
animals, if a popular newspaper revealed that the islanders' dogs were killed
in a form of psychological warfare to force them to leave, there would probably
be a large outcry, more so than just the stating the fact of the indigenous
people's expulsion  a sad comment on some of my fellow-countrymen's priorities.

The UK MSM are
not quite as supine as their U.S. equivalent, but they still mostly are cravenly
aligned with power, and so the poor Chagossians continue to fester in poverty
and injustice in Mauritius.

While
I generally agree with David Henderson's piece at Antiwar.com today, one must
point out the ambiguity of John Quincy Adams' oft-cited statement "America
goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy (7/4/1821)." It should be
evident it was case-specific with respect to U.S. involvement in the Greek
revolt against the Turks, for which there was a great deal of sympathy in the
U.S.

At the same time,
J.Q. Adams was James Monroe's secretary of state (often rated as our best!)
and was busy authoring the Monroe Doctrine (1823) for the president.

That was, of
course, our declaration of hegemonic rule in the Western Hemisphere, not disavowed
verbally until the 1920s, and not in reality even today, as evidenced by our
continued interventions to the south, first begun by George Washington in 1792
in Haiti. In the 1930s the U.S. forbade any such "doctrine" for the Japanese
in Asia, and that led to a war. The U.S. tends to be against intervention,
except when we do it. Now, George W. Bush has, in effect, proclaimed a global
Monroe Doctrine called GWOT.

Some "liberal"
politician, John Quincy Adams! As president in 1825, he soon laid out plans
for what remains perhaps the most extensive mercantilist program for American
government ever enunciated. At that time the railroad corporations were already
getting state subsidies not exceeded by the Feds until WWI, and our even more
generous policies today, such as the latest Fed/corporatist bailout of Wall
Street.

The election of
Andrew Jackson in 1828 halted that particular grand scheme for a time!

What kind of grass
are you smoking, David? If your article is any indication, "libertarian" scholars
need to read a bit more history.

Thank you for
your letter. It did inform me about a number of things I hadn't known about.
Notice, though, that it doesn't contradict anything that I wrote. I wrote,
"I believe that, in the words of our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, the
government should not go abroad 'in search of monsters to destroy.'" In other
words, I agree with Adams' words. You pointed out that Adams, as secretary
of state, was applying that idea to a very narrow case. I'm sure you're right.
I wasn't applying it to a narrow case. Adams' failure to be consistent should
not be grounds for rejecting the idea he stated. Also, I said nothing about
any of Adams' other policies. So although your background on his domestic policy
views – which do sound horrible – is interesting and important, it does not
contradict anything I wrote.

Why
do so many writers feel an obligation to repeat the Bush regime's propaganda
that the surge has contained violence?

Violence was
contained by three factors: (1) the Sunnis and Shi'ites have succeeded in cleansing
each other from mixed neighborhoods, (2) the U.S. government began paying Sunni
insurgents not to fight U.S. troops, and (3) Sadr ordered his militia to stand
down.

Backtalk
is edited by Sam Koritz.
Click here to send
a letter. Letters become the property of Antiwar.com and may be
edited before posting. Unless otherwise requested, authors may be
identified and e-mail addresses will not be published. The views expressed
do not necessarily represent those of Antiwar.com.